Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >I think its best we end up with 2 options on the vote, > > 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1] > 2) Increase requirements to Q [3:1] > > and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who > wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit > everyone. It seems to me it's a mistake to attribute to FD any meaning other than "let the discussion continue". If I prefer the current arrangement, I don't want to vote for further discussion, I want to vote for *stop the discussion*. If Further Discussion wins a vote which lacks an explicit status quo option, how does one interpret it? Clearly, none of the options were good enough, but was the problem that people don't want to change or that people want to change it to some other value not listed? Hence, a third option "keep the requirement as it is" would probably be a good idea. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Coming up with a new Oracle (was: Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR)
on't trust the Secretary to interpret the facts correctly, then don't empower him to make the decision. Even dropping the supermajority requirements altogether (Ian's option A) would be better. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Spamming the World through Open Debian Mailinglists (Re: lists.debian.org has received bounces from you)
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 03:21:46PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: > > RFC2822, section 3.3, is about date/time formats. I suspect you mean > RFC2821, section 3.3, which does not quite say that. It says: > > "the DATA command should fail only [...] or if the server determines > that the message should be rejected for policy or other reasons." > > It goes on to say: > "Server SMTP systems SHOULD NOT reject messages based on perceived > defects in the RFC 822 or MIME [12] message header or message body." > > So, while we are discouraged from rejecting based on poorly formatted > MIME, MTA admins are by no means discouraged from rejecting mail at DATA > time in general for site policy reasons. > It would be good if people stopped reading obsolete documents :) The current SMTP RFC is 5321 (which is a "draft standard"). Of course, that particular passage has not changed much: "[...] the DATA command should fail only [...] if the server determines that the message should be rejected for policy or other reasons. [...] Server SMTP systems SHOULD NOT reject messages based on perceived defects in the RFC 822 or MIME (RFC 2045 [21]) message header section or message body." I find the example that follows the passage (even in 2822) illuminating: "In particular, they MUST NOT reject messages in which the numbers of Resent-header fields do not match or Resent-to appears without Resent-from and/or Resent-date." Basically, what it's saying is that RFC pedantry is not a valid rejection reason. I agree with Stephen's conclusion. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: FINAL call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 06:43:00PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> When sending email from role addresses, I think it's better if the real
> name of the person is used, together with the role address itself,
> rather than using the role name (which is alread embedded in the
> address). This gives you immediately information that otherwise you have
> to obtain from the {gpg,} signature.
I'd prefer a format similar to
Role Name (Real Name)
I personally have used
Role Name c.o. Real Name
in some non-Debian situations where I have acted in a particular official role
(the c.o. being "care of").
That way, it is immediately obvious that the role hat is being used (I for one
don't usually pay attention to the email address), while also showing the
person behind the role.
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland
http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: RFC: General resolution: Clarify the status of the social contract
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:08:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The social contract is supposedly a contract. The Social Contract is not a contract (even though it is called that - but I believe the name is an intentional reference to a famous concept in political philosophy). A contract needs at least two parties that exchange promises. The SC has only one party (well, two if you want to stretch it), and is an unilateral promise with no expectation of a return promise. What the SC is, is a pledge. The terminology doesn't really matter, except that I will be voting against any proposal that calls the SC a contract, even if the sense of the proposal is something I support. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Unofficial (and Very Simple) Lenny GR: call for votes
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > f2276370-dfd7-45db-92d5-2da0c179c569 > [ ] Choice 1: Delay Lenny until known firmware issues are resolved > [ ] Choice 2: Acknowledge the lenny-ignore tags as set by the release team > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Why is there no Further Discussion option? -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Planet policy?
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 09:20:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > I read Planet Debian for the *non-Debian* posts. What somebody's apartment > in Japan looks like, what the trip to Berlin was like, etc. Maybe what > their Debian development area looks like... > > It's good to get to know our fellow developers as whole people, where Debian > is part -- but not all -- of their lives. Seconded :) My feelings about this probably are probably best illustrated by the following. Last year, I set up Planet Haskell. Being the guy who did the work, I ended up as the Planet Haskell editor and policy-maker, and the policy I set up for that planet was adapted from what I felt was the unstated Planet Debian policy: A common misunderstanding about Planet Haskell is that it republishes only Haskell content. That is not its mission. A Planet shows what is happening in the community, what people are thinking about or doing. Thus Planets tend to contain a fair bit of "off-topic" material. Think of it as a feature, not a bug. A blog is eligible to Planet if it is being written by somebody who is active in the Haskell community, or by a Haskell celebrity; also eligible are blogs that discuss Haskell-related matters frequently, and blogs that are dedicated to a Haskell topic (such as a software project written in Haskell). Note that at least one of these conditions must apply, and virtually no blog satisfies them all. (from http://planet.haskell.org/policy.html) The part about "a Haskell celebrity" was intended to cover people like Philip Wadler, one of the main designers of the language, whose current interests lie elsewhere. Similarly, I believe Ian Murdock easily qualifies as "a Debian celebrity" and as such is eligible for a Planet Debian listing :) Mutatis mutandis, I personally believe this is the correct policy for any planet. Including Planet Debian. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 01:28:00PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Why couldn't we just use some STV method for such elections? STV is a > tried and proved method, no need for us to start inventing new > methods. Many of the tried and "proved" STV methods are faulty. (Perhaps not as faulty as iterating Condorcet, but still:) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Multi-winner elections, soc-ctte (Was: Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7)
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:43:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > It should be relatively straight forward for Devotee to find the > winner, take the winner out of contention the next round, find the next > winner (ignoring any pairwise contests dealing with any candidate no > longer in the contest), and continue until the number of candidates > desired has been reached. This is no doubt true. As I mentioned in another mail, this procedure does have the problem of not delivering proprtional results. A scenario. Suppose that, in the future, Debian comes to be divided fairly cleanly into three factions in terms of who should be elected in a particular multi-winner election. One of the factions has a 55 % support, the second has 30 % support and the third has the remaining 15 % support. All three field at least as many candidates as there are seats. Supporters of a faction place the candidates fielded by their faction above the candidates fielded by the other factions. Now, under the "iterate single-winner-Schulze" method, it seems to me the winners will all be candidates fielded by the majority faction, no candidates of the minority factions ending up elected. Now, for the present discussion, this is relevant for the initial election of the committee, and it may actually be relevant for reconfirmation as well (if we decide that the soc ctte should be proportional, then the suggested reconfirmation method is wrong). It may even be desirable, in some situations, to create a body that has no factions in itself (justifying "winner takes all"), but I doubt the proposed soc committee is one of them. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Multiple-winner elections and Condorcet (Was: Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: [ on the Debian Condorcet method ] > It's targeted to finding the one winner, but it's easy to adapt to finding > a list: get the winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the > new winner, then remove it from the list of options and get the new winner, > etc. The reason we use the Condorcet method (particularly, I believe, its Schulze variant) is that it satisfies all kinds of nice properties. The obvious adaptation you mention fails a property which I consider a very important property of multiple-winner election methods (namely, proportionality). However, there is a proposal from Markus Schulze for a multiple-winner election method that is claimed to satisfy proportionality and that contains the single-winner Schulze method as a special case. (See http://m-schulze.webhop.net/schulze2.pdf) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: your mail
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:17:18PM +0200, Jorge Pérez Lara wrote: > It's true Debian is going to dead It's impossible, if you dead, LINUX is > going to dead No, Debian is not going to die. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 01:49:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > The role of jurors in the US legal system is not to interpret the law > (jurors are commonly given explicit direction about the standard that must > be met for the defendant to be guilty of a particular charge), but to decide > whether they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant > has committed the acts he or she is charged with. This kind of guidance is absolutely a must for a jury-based system, as well as detailed rules of evidence. A jury trial *might* work if there is an established police that investigates the event, and an adversarial proceedings directed by a trained judge; and even then I am not convinced. Some of the things I learned with practice are about learning to interpret the theatrics of the court room, and simply to get enough experience under my belt to know how similar cases have been decided before (the legally trained judge tells us this stuff, but it's much better to know it yourself). Not sure how much of this is relevant for Debian any more, though. > I did comment privately to AJ that I didn't think a jury system without an > appointed judge would work very well. I agree, with the proviso that I don't think it will work *at all* without one, and I'm sceptical about it even with one. > Jury nullification is a doctrine that juries have the right to acquit a > defendant in the interest of mercy, in spite of actually having committed > the acts he or she is accused of. There is explicit license to do this in Finnish penal code, BTW :) The standard it sets for exercising this license is pretty hard, though. > (And as for jury nullification, try mentioning your belief in such a doctrine > some time while *in* a jury pool -- it's great fun to watch counsel scurry > off to chambers so they can discuss having you excused from the jury > *selection* process...) Sounds like you speak from experience? :) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:12:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Randomly selected juries avoid the "cabal" problem -- it's transparent > who gets involved, it's not limited to some people, it's not > the same people all the time, and it's a bit easier to deal with > (perceived/claimed/whatever) conflicts of interest. The big problem with juries is that the jurors are *always* newbies to judging. In real life, I was clueless about the first dozen times I sat as a lay judge in the district court. Without having the opportunity to do it again and again and again, nobody can learn to do the thing properly. Of course, we hope that this sort of dispute resolution is needed so rarely that anybody, even if appointed as a regular judge, would have a hard time learning the job :) (As an aside, the other thing I find really abhorrent about the US-style juries is that they are not allowed (nor required) to write up a reasoning. If I have understood it correctly, there is a legal doctrine in the US that entitles the jury to rule contrary to law. This is ... bizarre, but also not relevant to Debian. Sorry about the rant:) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
[This is not really addressed to Clytie specifically, rather it's a more general mini-essay on this topic.] Clytie Siddall wrote: I don't understand why this election is restricted to Debian Developers. In a certain formal sense, the ability to vote in general resolutions and DPL elections is the defining attribute of a Debian Developer. If you can vote, you are a DD; and if you can't, you aren't. It's rather like the citizenship of a country. Being a DD also conveys additional but not as fundamental privileges: access to several Debian servers and the ability to upload packages are the most important ones. There has been talk about separating these privileges from developership, but there is no consensus about that. Being a developer says nothing about what one does in Debian (except that one is expected to do _something_ worthwhile:). There are the package maintainers, some of which are Debian Developers; there are the translators, some of which are Debian Developers; there are the technical writers, some of which are Debian Developers; and so on. (Naturally, these groups of people overlap somewhat, but that's not a very important point.) Certainly regular contributors ought to be inducted into developership, and disregarding the speed in which it happens, it does generally happen. The process for inducting new developers is called the New _Maintainer_ process mainly for historical reasons. What about all the other people who regularly contribute time and effort to the Debian project? If one wants to vote for the President of the United States, one should apply for the US citizenship. If one wants to vote for the DPL, one should apply for Debian developership. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: about communication Re: Delegation for trademark negotiatons with the DCCA
Holger Levsen wrote: > What I have learned more or less recently about communication, is, that it > doesnt matter what you have said or ment. As one of my compatriots has said: "Communication always fails, except by accident." (Attributed to Osmo Wiio.) -- Antti-Juhani signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Consultant entries that will be removed unless there is an email address provided
On 20050529T090242+0300, Tapio Lehtonen wrote: > If publishing e-mail address on the consultants page is mandatory, > what about publishing it as an image file? I would not want to have my > business e-mail in clear text in a web page which is an obvious target > for spammers collecting addresses. I. at least, am in the habit of ignoring firms that make it hard for me to contact them, under the theory that they don't want my money (if they did, they'd make it easy to contact them). Non-copyable email addresses are an example of this hostility toward prospective customers. (I do sometimes make exceptions to this, but only when they have something I really want that I can't get elsewhere. But even then I'm a pissed off customer.) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian Info
On 20010207T232130+0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > [please use plain text for mail - mail isn't the web] The mail I got *was* plain text. > On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 14:12:56 -0800, Eric Peng wrote: > >I am doing some research on the Linux operating system and have a question > >in regards to software running on Debian. If i have a piece of software > >that runs on Red Hat, will it also run on Debian? > > In general, yes. Although there have been cases in the past where a binary > compiled on a Red Hat system didn't work on a Debian system (the Red Hat > tools hardwired a search path for finding the dynamic X libraries which > didn't work on Debian). Also, generally Red Hat and Debian are source-compatible, so if a program runs in RedHat, it can almost always be compiled from source to work on a Debian system, even if the program for some reason does not work from the same binary. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Keep the Deja Archive Alive! http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
Re: [PROPOSAL] Allowing crypto in the main archive
On 20010111T010726+0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: > I am now about 2 - 3 days away from my first upload of freeswan. Should it go > into net (instead of non-US) now ? :-) No. A proposal does not automatically mean a policy change. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Keep the Deja Archive Alive! http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
Re: AM Report on Chris Rutter
On 2917T224252+0900, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote: > Does anyone else see my pgp signature was bad? Yes. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: Opposed Re: Seconded, sponsored. (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)
[ Continued on -project ] On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 03:35:48PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Yes. The social contract is sacred in that it is one of the building > blocks upon which the project is founded. Any changes to these foundations > will lead to project splits and worse. See the flamewar this has already > caused. I don't believe in projects that don't allow their basic text to be updated. Such projects will eventually become relics of no practical value. Even the Constitutions of sovereign states can be changed and modernized, and it can even be done peacefully. See for example Finland :-) > Found another project if you need to be so exclusive Found another project if you can't live with changes :-) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: Echelon
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 11:43:49AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > It does not decode quoted addresses like: > > Lista Debian =?iso-8859-1?Q?Espa=F1ol?= > The standard library includes MIME decoding code (don't remember now what it's called, but it's listed in the docs). -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho http://www.iki.fi/gaia/
Re: Echelon
> As an aside, does anyone here have a python routine for properly > splitting up a From: header, accounting for all the styles of seperating > the name from address and the various alternate locals? I'm not sure what you mean by "the various alternate locals" but the standard rfc822 module (AddressList class) seems to do what you need. See: http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-rfc822.html Or is it somehow deficient? -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho http://www.iki.fi/gaia/
Re: Stop Debian/FreeBSD
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 10:06:18PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > The fact that SPI will not make it proprietary does not prevent it > from becoming so. The BSD license permits it. And people have, and > continue to, exploit this weakness in the BSD license. Some people consider that weakness a strength. > This is no mere political thing as you try to make it. Yes it is, it is very political. > What you and > others are trying to do is, in my opinion, seriously damaging to the > Free Software community. The free software community is not GPL only. It includes such things as the *BSD, Mozilla, Hugs, NCurses, none of which come under the GPL. Some of them have the BSD property, some don't. IMAO your idea of GPL as the only true free license is what hurts free software much more violently than this Debian BSD thing. > This issue is much bigger than that; I think it deserves wide > attention instead of being relegated to an obscure mailing list. This discussion does not belong to debian-devel. Trying to subvert that fact in the name of getting "wide attention" just makes you look like a fool and a net neophyte. > Make > no mistake about it, had Linux used the BSD license, the Free Software > community would, by this time, be virtually entirely sold out to > commercial interests and fragmented. > > This happpened to BSD. I did not happen to BSD. There are three thriving BSD projects, all free software. > WE MUST NOT ALLOW people to do that to Debian. You may feel like this. I don't. Don't make it look like this is what Debian should do, because it isn't. If you disagree, please quote the scriptures. > Why not try to help the free software community > instead of hurt it? Look who's talking. We should try to unify the free software community instead of breaking it. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "" (John Cage)
Re: Data does NOT belong in Debian (was: Stop Archive bloat)
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 01:17:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Like bitchx, or SATAN, or nmap, or devfs? :) Or SeX? ;-) -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "" (John Cage)
